BigDonOKC wrote:
year ago for get the track had a coupled entry of one and one A 2 and 2B it ran one 2b and 4 paid 1 4 ex because the 2 was not a live runer and 2b was not running for purse. even though it ran second 2b

I remember that race, 2 days before the race Curtis posted right here he liked the 1-4 a lot.

Nah, I ended up betting the 4-1 straight since the 4 had a better liter to yard quotient. Woulda got it too, if only the darned jock on the 2B had kept his mount running straight on the clubhouse turn. Tough beat!

Curtis now that you posted may be Stark will stop call or refereeing to me as Curtis. Also the race I refer to was over 10 years ago it ran 1-2-4 and they show it as 1-2-4-3 and I had 1-2b they would not pay 1-2b because the 2 was not a live runner and they said the 2b was not running for purse.

stark wrote:Why should it be federal and not individual state laws? For comparison some states people don't have to pay state income tax. Some states are more friendly to illegal aliens than other states
Some states let their people smoke marijuana while others don't. Who is to say the federal law would be in the best interest of all? Let's just take a simple topic like takeout. Does anybody think a federal agency has the uniform answer?

Doesn't have to be federal oversight. I have no problem letting the Jockey Club set uniform rules for all TB racing within the United States, provided we give the Jockey Club enough teeth to enforce said rules. Like, needing to have a vet available on site for morning works, out-of-competition testing, a working (and quickly available) loose-horse-alarm for morning works and so on.

Or national protocol for concussed jockeys. Hurt jockeys. So many things.

There is an article I read from the LA Times that was published sometimes in the 90's where they were approving Lasix at NYRA and even then people were saying how little they knew about Lasix. A lifetime later and we still don't. How sad is this? It's incredible how the game doesn't want to invest in itself.

"Life's no piece of cake, mind you, but the recipe's my own to fool with."

BigDonOKC wrote:
Curtis now that you posted may be Stark will stop call or refereeing to me as Curtis. Also the race I refer to was over 10 years ago it ran 1-2-4 and they show it as 1-2-4-3 and I had 1-2b they would not pay 1-2b because the 2 was not a live runner and they said the 2b was not running for purse.

I was thinking more the NTRA than the Jockey Club https://www.ntra.com/, at least I had hoped for that when it first started almost two decades ago. But that could have been done at any time by giving them authority and funding. Some participants (okay many) are reluctant to give up power or put money into it, everyone from tracks, racing commissions, the alphabet soups of racing, etc.

I understand there are serious stumbling blocks, but the industry has had enough time to come together and fix itself. I have moved on to the strategy of making these changes in chunks, just do something to move forward. Let the world (and my family and friends) know we care, we are hearing and seeing, we are doing something.

Timely tweet:

Jim Mulvihill @YourFriendJimbo
44m44 minutes ago
Replying to @raypaulick @Craig_Bernick @HplayersAssnNA
The NTRA has long been a friend to horseplayers, creating and growing the NHC, adding an Eclipse Award for Horseplayer of the Year, and, most importantly, eliminating nearly all signers. It might not be spelled out in the mission statement but it is definitely in our blood.

Catalina wrote:
Doesn't have to be federal oversight. I have no problem letting the Jockey Club set uniform rules for all TB racing within the United States, provided we give the Jockey Club enough teeth to enforce said rules. Like, needing to have a vet available on site for morning works, out-of-competition testing, a working (and quickly available) loose-horse-alarm for morning works and so on.

My personal experience is limited to "A" tracks in California and the items you've mentioned are all pretty much covered already. I'm guessing that may not be the case at Canterbury or Delta Downs? The question then becomes why not? First guess is the cost and who should pay to have a vet on site for morning workouts? I have no reason to believe that the Jockey Club knows the answer to that question even if they had the teeth. The fact is that somebody in power is objecting or something so simple, such common sense, would already be in place.

How about an issue near and dear to many from coast to coast, taxes....or in our language takeout. The fees on a wager can be anywhere from 10% to 30% depending on the type of wager and the track its at. Why is that? Why can't all tracks be the same with an answer that satisfies the players churning the handle, the house putting on the show, the state that feels entitled, and the horsemen getting winners checks. Should large volume players get rebates so that their tax rate is actually lower that Curtis and Don? My guess is that nobody, including the Jockey Club knows the right answer or how to implement it.

So here's an easy question for either the Jockey Club or the NTRA that want's national standards.

Should a businessman like Frank Stronach who owns a racetrack, let's say Golden Gate Fields not too far from the Golden Gate Bridge, be allowed to run his business all year long, 52 weeks of racing at that one venue if he as the business owner wants to do it?

What say you Czarina?

(p.s. on a completely somewhat unrelated note I couldn't help but notice new construction today of a TacoBell. The only problem some might say is that it is literally next door to a DelTaco, the only thing separating them are the drive-thru lanes). Might be how the California Fair circuit feels about Frank?)

stark wrote:So here's an easy question for either the Jockey Club or the NTRA that want's national standards.

Should a businessman like Frank Stronach who owns a racetrack, let's say Golden Gate Fields not too far from the Golden Gate Bridge, be allowed to run his business all year long, 52 weeks of racing at that one venue if he as the business owner wants to do it?

What say you Czarina?

(p.s. on a completely somewhat unrelated note I couldn't help but notice new construction today of a TacoBell. The only problem some might say is that it is literally next door to a DelTaco, the only thing separating them are the drive-thru lanes). Might be how the California Fair circuit feels about Frank?)

No. Race track licenses would be restricted to seasonal racing operations, with the option of utilizing the facilities as a training center between meets.

Okay, so I checked in with Frank about this seasonal license idea and he said....
But dis is America, the land of the free, I need an opportunity to make an honest living and I can't do it when you shut me down.
When my business is open I make money, TVG makes money, Governor Brown makes money for California, the horsemen make money, a few of the fans even make money.
But when you shut me down, which one of those people help me pay my bills, absolutely none of them.
It's kind of like ChickFilet in reverse, they've figured out a way to be closed on Sunday and still make their budget, but can you imagine if some oversight committee in Washington said you have to close, you can't sell fried chicken on Sundays, geesh, blue laws for chickens!

So, I've talked it over with Belinda and how do you say it....I'm taking my ball and going home, you can have your stinking racetrack.
Just kidding, while it's still mine I'm going to bulldoze it and make way for new homes, shopping stores etc. Won't even have to change the name, Golden Gate Fields sounds like it'll be a nice neighborhood.

Is this what the Jockey Club, NTRA, BigDon, Tessapink and Czarina really want for an outcome?

Stronach seems to have a great need to be a) financially successful and b) universally admired and beloved (remind you of somebody else?) and when that fails here, too, he'll probably pack up his flying draft horse and move on. I have never viewed him as savior of horse racing, here or in Austria.

Catalina wrote:Stronach seems to have a great need to be a) financially successful and b) universally admired and beloved (remind you of somebody else?) and when that fails here, too, he'll probably pack up his flying draft horse and move on. I have never viewed him as savior of horse racing, here or in Austria.

Different strokes for different folks.
While he's not my best friend and I certainly didn't like his initial idea of destroying the Santa Anita hillside and I know some people think he's beyond crazy, I think there are some pretty solid financial numbers to back up his ideas over the years. If "you" insist on having a National Czar, I think you could do worse things than to elect Frank and Belinda (see CDI). He seems to see the sport from all angles, from profits to breeding to betting to fans to owners to a horse's retirement, and that's what's needed, not many people with that background exist out there.

He reminds me too much of the Walmart issue: Walmart tries to build lots of Walmart stores which then drives out the small retailers, and then, when the Walmart store doesn't make the expected profit, Walmart closes the store and leaves the community with no stores at all.

Which leads me to San Luis Rey. Thankfully Stronach changed his mind and rebuilt San Luis Rey. Because originally he wasn't planning to.

BigDonOKC wrote:
Curtis now that you posted may be Stark will stop call or refereeing to me as Curtis. Also the race I refer to was over 10 years ago it ran 1-2-4 and they show it as 1-2-4-3 and I had 1-2b they would not pay 1-2b because the 2 was not a live runner and they said the 2b was not running for purse.

So I was playing Belmont's 6th race today and really liked In Denile the 1 horse boxed with the 4, I guess I get paid even though I ran 4th, what a country!
1st: 1A Out Of Orbit $12.00 $4.30 $2.70
2nd: 4 Missbigtimes $3.10 $2.50
3rd: 3 Makin' Out $3.00
4th: 1 In Denile $12.00 $4.30 $2.70